DAILY GRIST

Thursday, 01 Mar 2007

---

A Feast for the Senseless?
Two writers try to subsist on organic and fair-trade food -- find out what happens to their plates, their wallets, and their family relations, in Gristmill.

---

---

Tell Your Kids the Truth
Need to get your kids out of the house? Grist is giving away a limited number of tickets to a March 10 slideshow for kids 8-12 that's based on Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. Click here for more info on this Town Hall Seattle event and find out how to win.

An Old Lease on Life
U.S. Interior Department negotiating to recoup lost royalties

Not yet recovered from its embarrassment at a contractual omission that lost the U.S. a hell of a lot of money, the Interior Department is negotiating with 22 oil and gas companies to try and recoup the dough. When the feds issued deep-water drilling leases for the Gulf of Mexico in 1998 and 1999, they neglected to stipulate that drillers would have to pay federal royalties if the market price for oil and gas rose above a certain level. Prices have, of course, shot up, and meeellions of dollars have stayed in the pockets of more than 40 oil and gas companies instead of going to U.S. coffers. The companies have been loath to rectify the mistake, arguing that the leases, while flawed, were still valid; about half of the corporations have declined to even discuss the matter. However, a bill that would bar companies from bidding on new gulf leases until they renegotiate and pony up the cash has passed the House and is awaiting action in the Senate. See, justice always wins out in the end! Right?

[ email | discuss | + digg | + del.icio.us ]

straight to the source: San Francisco Chronicle, Associated Press, H. Josef Hebert, 27 Feb 2007

see also, in Grist: Interior Wreckorating

Meany in a Bottle
Baby bottles found to leak chemicals, California may ban them

Most parents discourage their kiddos from ingesting known toxics, so a new study from green group Environment California is a bit of a bummer: when run through a simulated dishwasher 50 to 75 times, name-brand baby bottles leach the chemical bisphenol A, or BPA, in levels that have caused reproductive abnormalities in lab animals. Baby-product representatives spun the bottle, calling the report "sensational and biased" and arguing that their products meet federal standards, which really is far from comforting. Feeling un-comforted, California Assembly member Fiona Ma (D) has introduced a bill to ban children's products containing BPA or toxic plastic softeners called phthalates in the state, mirroring a current San Francisco law. And a group of experts convened by the National Institutes of Health will meet next week to review data and conclude whether or not BPA poses health risks to humanfolk -- but the findings, according to an NIH spokesperson, will "not necessarily" be adopted by the feds.

[ email | discuss | + digg | + del.icio.us ]

straight to the source: San Francisco Chronicle, Jane Kay, 28 Feb 2007

straight to the source: CNN Money, Reuters, 28 Feb 2007

see also, in Grist: Rubber Ducky, You're Not the One

NEW IN GRIST Fertile Ground Reviving a much-cited, little-read sustainable-ag masterpiece

At the turn of the last century (you remember that one), a young British scientist named Albert Howard ventured to Barbados to find cures for plant diseases. But as he pursued his quest, exploring the area and talking with native farmers, he soon realized that disease was part of an interconnected system of soil, plant, and animal health. His revelation led him to write books that sparked the modern organic agriculture movement, and Tom Philpott says there's still plenty to learn from the moldy old tomes -- one of which was recently reissued at long last.

[ email | discuss | + digg | + del.icio.us ]

new in Victual Reality: Fertile Ground

That's, What, Two Days in Iraq?
U.S. Department of Energy to grant up to $385 million for cellulosic ethanol

The U.S. plans to sink up to $385 million into cellulosic ethanol, doling out grants for six bio-refineries across the nation. The funds, spread over four years, will cover up to 40 percent of a $1.2 billion push expected to result in annual production of more than 120 million gallons. "Ultimately, success in producing inexpensive cellulosic ethanol could be the key to eliminating our nation's addiction to oil," said Energy Secretary Sam Bodman. The plants, in Iowa, Kansas, Florida, California, Idaho, and Georgia, will use sources ranging from switchgrass and cornstalks to landfill waste and timber scraps. "Cellulosic ethanol is not five or six years away," says the CEO of grantee Alico. "It is almost today." And as the U.S. gropes for the energy-independence grail, says energy consultant Lawrence J. Goldstein, leaders "are throwing money where they ought to be throwing it, because they know they can't get within shouting distance of their goal without a major, quick breakthrough in cellulosic."

[ email | discuss | + digg | + del.icio.us ]

straight to the source: The New York Times, Alexei Barrionuevo, 01 Mar 2007

straight to the source: Houston Chronicle, Associated Press, David Pitt, 28 Feb 2007

straight to the source: Forbes, Associated Press, Alan Zibel, 28 Feb 2007

see also, in Grist: Cellulosic ethanol may be coming sooner than you think

She Will Have Her Way
Hearing held on Inuit climate and human-rights claim against U.S.

In the northern reaches of the world, climate change is more than a theory. For years, native Inuit have seen extreme weather and weak ice interfere with their lives, and they say big emitters like the U.S. are to blame. Today -- more than a year after filing a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and a month after the body reversed its decision to deny a hearing -- the Inuit will have a chance to formally make their case. "Our way of life is at stake," says Sheila Watt-Cloutier, a past chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference whose activism recently garnered her a Nobel Peace Prize nomination. "[We] tell the story of the Inuk hunter who falls through the depleting ice, how it's connected to the industries, connected to the disposable world." Watt-Cloutier will air her concerns to a commission with no power over the U.S. government. But her goal, she says, is a moral one: this issue is "about real people who live on top of the world." Eh, still seems kind of far away.

[ email | discuss | + digg | + del.icio.us ]

straight to the source: Canada.com, Canadian Press, Beth Gorham, 01 Mar 2007

straight to the source: San Diego Union Tribune, Associated Press, Beth Duff-Brown, 28 Feb 2007

see also, in Grist: Inuit fight climate change with human-rights claim


Grist: Environmental News and Commentary

©2007. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.

The Progress Report:

POLITICS
Pushing Out Justice

One of the most "important tenets" of a U.S. attorney's office is to never "mix politics with prosecutions." But it appears that the Justice Department has done just that, recently firing eight well-respected U.S. attorneys and replacing them with partisan Bush administration loyalists. Many of these ousted prosecutors were working on high-profile corruption cases and received high marks on their job evaluations by the Justice Department. All appear to be "victim[s] of strong-arm political pressure from Washington," pushed out to make room for political cronies. At each turn, Justice Department officials have made up different excuses for the firings, from insisting that the prosecutors stepped down on their own to claiming that they were fired for "performance-related" reasons. None of these charges have stood up. A little-noticed provision in the Patriot Act allows these "interim" Bush appointees to serve indefinitely, without Senate approval. Conservative senators are now blocking a repeal of this measure. "I think Americans need to have full confidence that their federal prosecutors are above politics," said one of the ousted prosecutors, David Iglesias, highlighting why it is necessary for all of these Bush appointees to be held up to public scrutiny.

CLAIM #1 -- THEY WERE BAD AT THEIR JOBS: On Feb. 6, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee that six U.S. attorneys were fired in Dec. 2006 for "performance-related" reasons. But in reality, these prosecutors were highly respected in their fields and received praise in job evaluations from the Justice Department shortly before they were told to resign. Similarly, at least four of the fired prosecutors said that Michael Battle, head of the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, never cited performance issues -- or gave any reason at all -- as the reason for their forced resignations. John McKay, the former U.S. attorney in Washington, recounted his conversation with Battle: "When I was composed enough to ask him why [I was being fired], he told me he couldn't answer any of my questions. ... He said nothing about performance issues or management or anything else." In fact, five of these prosecutors had positive job reviews. Just months before firing him, Battle sent McKay a "congratulatory letter for the laudatory report issued by the Justice Department audit team." Daniel Bogden, the former U.S. attorney in Nevada, "was described in his last job performance evaluation in 2003 as being a 'capable' leader who was highly regarded by the federal judiciary and investigators." Former U.S. attorney in California Carol Lam was "'well respected' by law enforcement officials, judges and her staff" in her 2005 evaluation. Paul Charlton, former U.S. attorney in Arizona, was "described as being respected by his staff, federal investigators, judges and Native American leaders for 'his integrity, professionalism and competence.'" A Justice Department official also confirmed that Iglesias "received a positive evaluation last year."

CLAIM #2 -- THEY WEREN'T TEAM PLAYERS: After media reports began revealing that the U.S. attorneys were all given positive job evaluations, the Justice Department changed its excuse for the forced resignations, claiming that the attorneys were rogue prosecutors. "The reviews don't take into account whether the U.S. attorneys carried out departmental priorities," said one official. But as the New York Times noted, "each case report included a statement that each of the ousted prosecutors had established strategic goals set by the Justice Department in high priority areas like counterterrorism, narcotics and gun violence." Bogden said that his office had "done more gun cases, drug cases, gang cases, child exploitation cases, identity theft cases than any office has done in any five year period of time." A Justice Department review of Iglesias's job performance, dated Nov. 2005, concluded that he had a strategic plan that "complied with the department's priorities."

CLAIM #3 -- THERE'S NO COVER-UP: What the ousted prosecutors all have in common -- in addition to strong job evaluations -- is that they were "overseeing significant public-corruption investigations at the time they were asked to leave. Four of the probes target Republican politicians or their supporters." In the case that has received the most attention, Lam oversaw the public corruption case of former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, which resulted in his guilty plea and the indictments of a defense contractor and a former CIA official. With Lam's departure, it is unclear whether her successor will continue to pursue the corruption investigation. Similarly, Charlton's office was "investigating charges involving land deals and influence peddling against Republican Congressman Rick Renzi (R-AZ)," Bogden was "looking into campaign law violations by at least one member of the state's Congressional delegation," and Cummins was investigating Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt (R). Kevin Ryan, the former U.S. attorney in California, wasn't pursuing public corruption, but as Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Scott Lilly notes, he likely "stepped on the toes of a number of their [the Bush administration's] most generous contributors with his high profile investigations of back-dated stock options given to numerous executives in major corporations." Iglesias, who was pursuing a federal probe of a kickback scheme, believes he was fired because he "refused to speed up an indictment of local Democrats a month before November's congressional elections." Iglesias "said that two members of Congress called separately in mid-October" and "appeared eager...for an indictment to be issued before the elections in order to benefit the Republicans." "I believe that because I didn't play ball, so to speak, I was asked to resign," Iglesias noted.

CLAIM #4 -- IT'S NOT POLITICAL: The Justice Department continues to insist that the firings weren't political. "I would never, ever make a change in the United States attorney position for political reasons," said Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. "When I hear you talk about the politicizing of the Department of Justice, it's like a knife in my heart," said McNulty. But the Justice Department itself has admitted that at least one of the U.S. attorneys -- H.E. "Bud" Cummings in Arkansas -- was pushed out to make way for Bush loyalist Timothy Griffin, the former research director at the Republican National Committee and a "37-year-old protege" of Karl Rove. According to Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AK), the Justice Department originally tried to claim that Cummins resigned on his own, which McNulty later admitted was untrue. Salon notes, "Some former Justice Department officials say they believe the administration's moves are a politically driven power grab -- aimed not only at a tighter grip on policy from Washington, but also at creating openings with which to reward their friends and build up a bench of conservative loyalists positioned to serve in powerful posts in future administrations." Similarly, Sen. John Ensign (R-AZ) was reportedly "told that the decision to remove U.S. attorneys, primarily in the West, was part of a plan to 'give somebody else that experience' to build up the back bench of Republicans by giving them high-profile jobs." Since last March, the administration has named nine U.S. attorneys -- including Griffin -- with Bush administration ties. These appointees include a former counselor to Gonzales and a protege of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

CLAIM #5 -- IT WASN'T DONE TO AVOID CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT: In 2005, a member of Sen. Arlen Specter's (R-PA) staff slipped into the Patriot Act a little-noticed provision that allows the attorney general to appoint replacement U.S. attorneys for an indefinite period of time. Earlier this month, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a measure "that would take away the executive branch's unchecked power on U.S. attorney appointments" and restore the system to the pre-2005 rules. It would allow the attorney general "to appoint a replacement for 120 days, with the district court then stepping in and appointing a new interim U.S. attorney if the Senate has not approved a permanent one." Conservatives are now blocking the full Senate bill, sponsored by Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Mark Pryor (D-AR). Reps. John Conyers (D-MI) and Linda Sanchez (D-CA) requested an analysis from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) into whether previous administrations have also fired prosecutors without justification, but the Justice Department has refused to cooperate with the investigation, according to the CRS analyst. Today, the House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on issuing subpoenas to four of the eight dismissed prosecutors and the Senate Judiciary Committee, meanwhile, "will send letters to those fired before voting next week on compelling their testimony." "In order to get the full picture of why these U.S. attorneys were fired, we need to hear from the Justice Department and the U.S. attorneys themselves," said Conyers.

Union Busting As Homeland Security

Dick Meister
March 01, 2007

Copyright © 2007 Dick Meister, a freelance columnist in San Francisco who has covered labor issues for four decades as reporter, editor and commentator. Contact him through his website, www.dickmeister.com.

President Bush and his Republican allies in Congress agree that airport screeners play a vital role in the war against terror, yet continue to deny them the basic right of unionization by asserting that it would “threaten national security.”

The actual motive is as obvious as the often-demonstrated anti-unionism of Bush and friends. House members recognized that in January when they voted 299-128 for a bill that would repeal a provision of the five-year-old Aviation Transportation and Security Act that gives the president authority to bar screeners from exercising the collective bargaining rights granted other federal employees.

The Senate is about to take up the bill. But though the slim Democratic majority there is certain to support it, Republicans are threatening a filibuster that could block passage. Even if the measure should squeak through Congress, Bush has promised to veto it, and the GOP minority has promised enough votes to sustain a veto.

Bush and other opponents of the bill compare the 45,000 men and women who screen air passengers’ luggage with the men and women who are fighting in Iraq.

“Marines don’t collectively bargain over whether they’re going to wind up, you know, being deployed in Anwar province or in Baghdad,” Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff explained. “We can’t negotiate over terms and conditions of work that goes to the heart of our ability to move rapidly in order to deal with the threats that are emerging.”

Bush agrees. He, too, sees nothing wrong with ignoring the labor laws including those granting union rights “when it serves our national interest.”

But does it really serve the national interest to prohibit airport screeners from grabbing hold of unionization, the tool that workers must have if they are to gain job security and a fair and effective voice in determining their working conditions? To prohibit them from having union protection that would enable them to freely blow the whistle on wasteful, abusive or fraudulent management practices?

The screeners certainly aren’t happy with their current conditions. They have a higher turnover rate than the employees of any other federal employee group, a higher injury rate and file more discrimination charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Screeners complain especially about being forced to work overtime without prior notice, having their working shifts arbitrarily changed, their paychecks delayed and being sexually harassed. They say they face retaliation for complaining about their conditions or about problems with their agency’s operations and lack sufficient health and safety standards and procedures to resolve grievances.

John Gage, president of the union seeking to bargain on behalf of the screeners, The American Federation of Government Employees, notes that those who run the Transportation Security Agency, which employs the screeners, also would benefit from unionization. For as employers elsewhere have learned, things in general go much more smoothly if there are mutually agreed-to rules and procedures for dealing with labor-management relations and the operations of the workplace.

Gage says, in any case, that “it’s time to put an end to TSA’s bullying.”

The United Nations’ International Labor Organization said much the same thing, albeit in appropriately diplomatic terms. It ruled that the Transportation Security Agency violated “core labor standards” in denying screeners what it deemed their fundamental right to collective bargaining.

Denying unionization to screeners does not serve the interest of the screeners any more than it serves the interest of the country, as Bush pretends it does.

What it serves is the undisguised attempt by Bush and the GOP to weaken unions, which are among the Democrats’ most effective supporters, as witnessed by their key role in the party’s midterm election victories.
Republicans are especially eager to weaken public employee unions, which directly challenge the administration’s authority and are the strongest segment of today’s labor movement.

The GOP way, the Bush way, is to try to force public workers to take whatever their government bosses impose on them—or else. And no questions asked.

The screeners haven’t been their only federal targets. The Bush Administration previously installed a personnel system that would have denied bargaining rights to all 115,000 of the screeners’ fellow employees in the Homeland Security Department, as well as greatly weakened their civil service protections.

The administration backed off, however, after two federal courts ruled that the unilaterally-imposed system would violate the workers’ rights. One ruling, by an appeals court last June, said the system—which would have required employees, but not their bosses, to sign an employment contract—“not only defies the well-understood meaning of collective bargaining, it also defies common sense.”

The administration is still trying to impose a similar system on the Defense Department’s 700,000 employees, and is likely to soon come up with another new system for the Department of Homeland Security.

It’s the very least we can expect from George Bush and his Republican accomplices in their undiminished eagerness to protect the nation from the threat of unionization.

March 1:

1961 : PEACE CORPS ESTABLISHED:

On March 1, 1961, President John F. Kennedy issues Executive Order
#10924, establishing the Peace Corps as a new agency within the
Department of State. The same day, he sent a message to Congress
asking for permanent funding for the agency, which would send trained
American men and women to foreign nations to assist in development
efforts. The Peace Corps captured the imagination of the U.S. public,
and during the week after its creation thousands of letters poured
into Washington from young Americans hoping to volunteer.

The immediate precursor of the Peace Corps--the Point Four Youth
Corps--was proposed by Representative Henry Reuss of Wisconsin in the
late 1950s. Senator Kennedy learned of the Reuss proposal during his
1960 presidential campaign and, sensing growing public enthusiasm for
the idea, decided to add it to his platform. In early October 1960, he
sent a message to the Young Democrats that called for the
establishment of a "Youth Peace Corps," and on October 14 he first
publicly spoke of the Peace Corps idea at an early morning speech at
the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. The night before, he had
engaged Vice President Richard Nixon in the third presidential debate
and was surprised to find an estimated 10,000 students waiting up to
hear him speak when he arrived at the university at 2 a.m. The
assembled students heard the future president issue a challenge: How
many of them, he asked, would be willing to serve their country and
the cause of freedom by living and working in the developing world for
years at a time?

The Peace Corps proposal gained momentum in the final days of
Kennedy's campaign, and on November 8 he was narrowly elected the 35th
president of the United States. On January 20, 1961, in his famous
inaugural address, he promised aid to the poor of the world. "To those
peoples in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break
the bonds of mass misery," he said, "we pledge our best efforts to
help them help themselves, for whatever period is required--not
because the communists may be doing it, not because we seek their
votes, but because it is right." He also appealed to Americans to "ask
not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your
country."

After March 1, thousands of young Americans answered this call to duty
by volunteering for the Peace Corps. The agency, which was headed by
Kennedy's brother-in-law, R. Sargent Shriver, eventually chose some
750 volunteers to serve in 13 nations in 1961. In August, Kennedy
hosted a White House ceremony to honor the first Peace Corps
volunteers. The 51 Americans who later landed in Accra, Ghana, for two
years of service immediately made a favorable impression on their
hosts when they gathered on the airport tarmac to sing the Ghanaian
national anthem in Twi, the local language.

On September 22, 1961, Kennedy signed congressional legislation
creating a permanent Peace Corps that would "promote world peace and
friendship" through three goals: (1) to help the peoples of interested
countries in meeting their need for trained men and women; (2) to help
promote a better understanding of Americans on the part of the peoples
served; and (3) to help promote a better understanding of other
peoples on the part of Americans.

By the end of 1963, 7,000 volunteers were in the field, serving in 44
Third World countries. In 1966, Peace Corps enrollment peaked, with
more than 15,000 volunteers in 52 countries. Budget cuts later reduced
the number of Peace Corps volunteers, but today more than 7,000 Peace
Corps volunteers are serving in over 70 countries. Since 1961, more
than 180,000 Americans have joined the Peace Corps, serving in 134
nations.

history.com/tdih.do

Walking Eagle

Senator Hillary Clinton was invited to address a major gathering of the American Indian Nation two weeks ago in upper New York state.
She spoke for almost an hour on her future plans for increasing every Native American's present standard of living, should she one day become the first female President. She referred to her career as a New York Senator, how she had signed "YES" for every Indian issue that came to her desk for approval. Although the Senator was vague on the details of her plan, she seemed most enthusiastic about her future ideas for helping her "red sisters
and brothers".
At the conclusion of her speech, the Tribes presented the Senator with a plaque inscribed with her new Indian name - Walking Eagle. The proud Senator then departed in her motorcade, waving to the crowds.
A news reporter later inquired to the group of chiefs of how they come to select the new name given to the Senator. They explained that Walking Eagle is the name given to a bird so full of shit that it can no longer fly.

David Roberts Bio

02.28.2007

Talking Points on the Gore Pseudo-Scandal (36 comments )

READ MORE: Al Gore

I just talked with a reporter from CNS News -- a right-wing media site -- about the Al Gore pseudo-scandal. Who knows how my comments will end up being represented in the piece. Probably something like, "Al Gore ... does it ... with ... hogs."

But just to keep a public record, here are the talking points I shared with him. Feel free to borrow them for your own encounters with media or family and friends:

• It's nice to see the conservative media taking the message of conservation and energy efficiency seriously. Hopefully they will hold their own leaders and readers to the same high standards.
• The Tennessee Tax Dept. does not consider the "Tennessee Center for Policy Research," which roughly no one had heard of before this, a legitimate group. It's run by a long-time right-wing attack hack, and its only registered address is a P.O. box. Why is everyone in the media taking what it says about Gore's electricity use at face value?
• Gore's electricity company has no record of being contacted about his bills.
• The "average" home electricity use quoted by TCPR is a national average that includes apartments and mobile homes. In Gore's climatic zone, the East South Central (Dept. of Energy PDF), the average is much higher, thanks to hot, humid summers and cold winters. Within that zone, Gore's usage is three (not 20) times average, and his per-square-foot usage is squarely average. (More here.)
• The Gores are not an average family. He's an ex-VP with special security arrangements, and has live-in security staff. He and his wife both work on their many business and charitable undertakings out of their house, so they have space for offices and office staff. All that would be tough to cram in an average size house.
• Gore buys the maximum allowable green electricity from the program offered by his utility.
• Most of the electricity in TN comes from hydro and nuclear, and so doesn't generate all that much CO2 anyway.

The larger point, which probably won't work well as a cable-show soundbite but is nonetheless true, is that Gore has done heroic work making global warming a top issue for governments the world over. He has prompted more individual and collective action on this issue than anyone else alive. The changes he has wrought outweigh his personal carbon emissions by many orders of magnitude.

They know Gore's message is winning. They know they are losing. Even if they're successful in tarnishing Gore, it won't change that.

grist.org

Four Ways Democrats Can End the War in Iraq

Four Ways Democrats Can End the War in Iraq

It's been nearly 4 months since the American people voted Democrats into power to get U.S. troops out of Iraq, yet Democratic in Congress cannot agree on any minimally effective plan to stop Bush's escalation and begin a responsible redeployment out of the crossfire of Iraq's civil war.

Here are four strategies that would work if Democrats would fight for them:

1. The only certain way to end the war is to cut off funds, but Speaker Pelosi has insanely taken that "off the table." On March 19, San Francisco activists will rally in front of Pelosi's office urging her to stop funding the war:
http://www.stopfundingthewar.com/home/

2. The next best way is to impeach Bush and Cheney and replace them with an anti-war Democrat or Republican acceptable to Congress (like Gerald Ford), but Pelosi has insanely taken that "off the table" too. Join over 70,000 activists who have emailed their Representatives to Impeach Bush and Cheney:
http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/88?ad=d6

3. Just 40 Senators could filibuster all war funding bills, starting with the $93 billion Supplemental in early March. Russ Feingold could start this filibuster with the support of the handful of Democratic Senators who truly want to end the war: John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama, and Ben Cardin. All we need are 40 of the 50 Democrats for the filibuster to succeed. Email them (and personalize the letter if you can):

russ@progressivepatriotsfund.com, info@tedkennedy.com, support@johnkerry.com, media@barackobama.com, info@bencardin.com

Dear Senators,

The only way to end the Iraq War is to cut the funds, starting with the $93 billion Supplemental in March.

I urge all of you to work together to filibuster the Supplemental. You only need 40 votes to sustain the filibuster and force the Bush Administration to change its disastrous course.

Millions of us will do everything we possibly can to support your efforts, including demanding that all Democratic Senators support you - but it's up to you to take the lead.

Sincerely,
[Your name and postal address]

4. House Democrats could raise taxes on the rich to pay for the war, starting with an amendment to the $93 billion Supplemental in early March. Since Republicans will never vote to tax the rich, adding this as an amendment to the Supplemental would guarantee Republicans defeat the bill - or Bush vetoes it. Call your Representative at 202-224-3121 (the Capitol switchboard - ask for your Congressperson) and urge him or her to add a War Tax to the Supplemental.

Discuss this strategy here:
http://www.democrats.com/four-ways-to-end-the-iraq-war

______________

State Impeachment Efforts Are Gaining Steam

Washington State's impeachment resolution will get its first hearing today, and New Mexico's impeachment resolution will get its third hearing (Judiciary Committee) on Sunday. In Washington State, U.S. Senator Patty Murray and Rep. Jay Inslee - both good Democrats - are telling state Democrats to kill the bill because it's a "waste of time," but local activists are fighting back hard.

Local activism is the key to victory, and we urgently need your help to create Congressional District Impeachment Committees in all 435 Districts. We now have 118:
http://www.democrats.com/cdic-find
But if you can't find one in your district, it's easy to start one:
http://www.democrats.com/cdic

______________

Don't Attack Iran

According to Seymour Hersh, Bush and Cheny have already launched pre-war operations in Iran with money illegally taken from elsewhere, exactly as they began the current war in Iraq over four years ago.

Even more incredibly, Hersh reports Bush and Cheney are funneling the money to Al Qaeda groups - the very terrorists who murdered nearly 3,000 Americans on September 11, whose destruction has allegedly been the ultimate goal of the Bush Administration ever since.

Iran was our ally after 9/11 and helped us drive the Taliban out of Afghanistan. In 2003, Iran sent a letter to Bush through the Swiss ambassador and Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) offering far-reaching compromises on its nuclear program, relations with Hezbollah and Hamas and support for a Palestinian peace agreement with Israel. Yet Cheney rejected the offer and even reprimanded the Swiss ambassador for sending it.

Now Bush is accusing Iran of arming Iraqi insurgents, but evidence to the contrary is piling up. Here's a growing collection of lies about Iran by the White House. And here are simple talking points for opponents of this looming war.

Sign the Petition. This petition has over 99,000 signatures. If you send it to everyone you know, it will top 100,000 this week: http://www.dontattackiran.org

With two aircraft carrier groups in the Persian Gulf, Bush could bomb Iran on a moment's notice. If Bush administration bombs Iran despite our efforts, we will respond. And we will hold Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers to their commitments to pursue impeachment if Bush and Cheney attack Iran:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/iranresponse

______________

First Subpoenas Finally on the Way

One of the reasons we worked so hard to put Democrats in power in 2006 was to give them the power to force the Bush Administration to testify under oath by issuing subpoenas. Finally, after two months in power, Reps. John Conyers and Linda Sanchez will issue the first Democratic subpoenas to U.S. Attorneys who were recently fired for investigating corrupt Republicans like Duke Cunningham.

Of course, these fired prosecutors are friendly witnesses who are eager to blow the whistle on the Bush Administration for firing them. But at least it puts subpoenas on the table where they belong. For that, Conyers and Sanchez should be thanked, and encouraged to apply that power to all of the other investigations that need to begin immediately:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/investigations

John Conyers: 202 225-5126 John.Conyers@mail.house.gov
Linda Sanchez: 202-225-6676

______________

Business Before Pleasure: Impeach Cheney First

The evidence against Dick Cheney that has energed from the trial of I. Scooter Libby is more than reasonable grounds for impeachment. Read this indictment of Cheney for the Plame leak. Then check out these comprehensive articles of impeachment against Cheney.

More breaking news and analysis is collected at http://www.impeachcheney.org

Sign the Petition:
http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/73

______________

MARCH FORTH!
A National Day of Dialogue, Action & Celebration

"We the People" as the authors of the progressive story that is America, will gather under the mandate to "create a more perfect union" and chart an aspirational course towards greater justice, domestic tranquility, the common defense, and liberty for all. March 4, 1789, was the day that the US Constitution went into effect. Today, March forth, a fortunate pun is also a call to action. In a time of polarization, abandonment of founding principles, and the apparent inability of elected officials to address the most dire crisis of our time "We the People" must MarchForth!

Here are resources to plan an event and a map of events already planned:
http://www.wethepeoplemarch4th.org

______________

March on the Pentagon on March 17

Make plans now to join veterans, military families, and responsible citizens in a nonviolent march for peace and impeachment, beginning at the Vietnam War Memorial and ending at the Pentagon.

http://www.marchonpentagon.org

______________

PDA Grassroots Leadership Conference -- March 23-25, 2007

Join Medea Benjamin, Marilyn Clement, Lori Wallach, Bill Fletcher, Steve Cobble, Bill Goold, Terry Lierman, Greg Moore, David Swanson, Jonathan Tasini, Joel Segal, Mimi Kennedy, Jeff Cohen, Tim Carpenter, and many more friends and leaders of PDA for three days of training and organizing in Washington, D.C.

Sign up now!
http://tinyurl.com/2e6odd

______________

Design and Buy Your Own Impeachment Shirts

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/customshirt

______________

Do You Want It?

http://www.bushisover.org

#####

Forward this message to everyone you know!

If you received this from a friend, you can subscribe at:
http://archive.democrats.com/elandslide/subscribe_module.cfm?campaign=ads

VIDEO |

Thousands speak out against occupation, use their bodies to call for impeachment [VIDEO] By Joshua Holland Rumors of the anti-war movement's demise appear to be exaggerated.

Love Affair With High-Tech Weaponry

Why Can't We Talk about Peace in Public? By Matt Taibbi, RollingStone.com Our national love affair with high-tech weaponry is an inevitable consequence of having a military industrial complex that underwrites our economic structure.

IKEA

IKEA: Who Says Big Retail Can't Be Good for the Environment? By David Roberts, Grist Magazine IKEA's environmental policies and ambitious future plans put U.S. retailers to shame.

World More Dangerous

The War on Terror Is the Leading Cause of Terrorism By Kim Sengupta, Patrick Cockburn, The Independent UK It's official: A new report shows that the U.S. has made the world more dangerous -- not just for Americans, but for everyone. Read more »

February 28:

1968 : Wheeler says Westmoreland will need more troops

Gen. Earle Wheeler, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, returns
from his recent round of talks with Gen. William Westmoreland in
Saigon and immediately delivers a written report to President Lyndon
B. Johnson.

Wheeler stated that despite the heavy casualties incurred during the
Tet Offensive, North Vietnam and Viet Cong forces had the initiative
and were "operating with relative freedom in the countryside." The
communists had pushed South Vietnamese forces back into a "defensive
posture around towns and cities," seriously undermined the
pacification program in many areas, and forced General Westmoreland to
place half of his battalions in the still imperiled northernmost
provinces, thus "stripping the rest of the country of adequate
reserves" and depriving the U.S. command of "an offensive capability."
To meet the new enemy threat and regain the initiative, according to
Wheeler, Westmoreland would need more men: "The add-on requested
totals 206,756 spaces for a new proposed ceiling of 731,756."

It was a major turning point in the war. To deny the request was to
concede that the United States could impose no military solution in
the conflict, but to meet it would require a call-up of reserves and
vastly increased expenditures. Rather than making an immediate
decision, President Johnson asked Defense Secretary Clark Clifford to
conduct a thorough, high-level review of U.S. policy in Vietnam.

A disgruntled staff member in the Johnson White House leaked the
Wheeler-Westmoreland proposal for additional troops. The story broke
in the New York Times on March 10, 1968. With the images of the
besieged U.S. Embassy in Saigon during the Tet Offensive still fresh
in their minds, the press and the public immediately concluded that
the extra troops must be needed because the U.S. and South Vietnamese
had suffered a massive defeat.

Secretary of State Dean Rusk was subjected to 11 hours of hearings
before a hostile Congress on March 11 and 12. A week later, 139
members of the House voted for a resolution that called for a complete
review of Johnson's Vietnam policy. Discontent in Congress mirrored
the general sentiment in the country. In March, a poll revealed that
78 percent of Americans expressed disapproval with Johnson's handling
of the war.

On March 22, President Johnson scaled down Westmoreland's request and
authorized 13,500 reinforcements. Shortly after, Johnson announced
that Westmoreland would be brought home to be Army Chief of Staff. He
was to be replaced by Gen. Creighton Abrams.

history.com/tdih.do

Redefining Progress:

Global Warming, Income Gap, Urban Sprawl, and Debt Reduce America's Economic Welfare

OAKLAND, Calif.- February 28 - -The U.S. economy has actually stagnated since the late 1970s as income inequality, environmental degradation, and our flailing international position take their toll on real economic progress. This is one of the key findings from a new analysis of the United States Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) by the Oakland based policy institute Redefining Progress. The GPI is an alternative economic accounting system that takes into account the benefits associated with volunteering, higher education, housework, and public infrastructure as well as the costs associated with lost forests, farmland, and wetlands, pollution, disappearing family time, and capital exported abroad. Most economists agree that Gross Domestic Product (GDP) fails as a true measure of real economic progress, and have endorsed alternative accounting systems such as the GPI. Redefining Progress is the only U.S. group to publish regular updates to the U.S. GPI. According to Dr. John Talberth, lead author of the new GPI analysis, "Time and time again Americans are misled by glowing accounts of how well our economy is doing. Our new analysis looks behind the hype by acknowledging the costs associated with income inequality, global warming pollution, sprawl, lost family time, and our growing mountain of consumer debt. Tragically, per capita GPI has stagnated near $15,000 since the late 1970s while per capita GDP has grown to over $36,000. This means that the average American family has had to work harder and harder just to maintain the standard of living they enjoyed 30 years ago. It's time for the President, Congress, and government agencies such as the Bureau of Economic Analysis to stop misleading the American public with irrelevant GDP reports and to develop more useful indicators of economic progress more in line with people's everyday experiences. We are unlikely to see real economic progress until our government learns to measure it." The 2006 GPI update makes significant improvements to the methods used to calculate previous GPI reports. Since the late 1990s, when the last methodological changes were made, there has been a wealth of new data and studies that have improved the accuracy and reliability of the GPI's components, or sub-accounts. These data were incorporated into the 2006 update. In addition, the 2006 update adds new sub-accounts tracking the economic benefits of higher education and the costs associated with carbon emissions and loss of primary forest cover because of the increasing importance of these factors. "These improvements have made the GPI an even better tool for evaluating real economic progress, and we hope government agencies, public interest organizations, and researchers will work with us to use the GPI as a guide to sustainable economic policy at the federal, state, and local levels," Talberth continued. KEY FINDINGS FROM THE GPI 2006 UPDATE Drought, floods, sea level rise, and severe storms exacerbated by global warming are taking their toll on the U.S. economy. Conservatively, Redefining Progress estimates the costs of our carbon emissions on existing and future generations to be just over $1 trillion per year, about 10% of GDP. Income inequality is at its greatest level since 1950. The income distribution index--which measures income inequality--increased by 20% since 1968, the year the nation's income was distributed most equitably. When growth is concentrated in the wealthiest income brackets, standard economic theory suggests that overall economic welfare suffers because the social benefits of increases in spending by the wealthy are less than increases in spending by those least well off. So a dollar of economic growth today counts far less than it did when our income distribution was more equitable. Urban sprawl gobbles up prime farmland, increases commute times, exacerbates urban air, water, and noise pollution, and increases accident rates. We estimate the costs of urban sprawl to be over $1.1 trillion each year. Globalization has exported America's vast manufacturing infrastructure overseas and with it a source of productive investments. As a result, an increasing share of foreign investment in the U.S. today is used to finance consumer debt and government spending for tax breaks and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This puts us in the position of being a net borrower. Net borrowing today is a record $254 billion, a cost overlooked by GDP. The increase in the number of college graduates in the population is increasingly paying off in the form of many non-market benefits such as increases in the stock of knowledge, worker productivity, civic participation, job market efficiency, savings, research and development activities, charitable giving, and health. These benefits amount to roughly $828 billion each year. Volunteerism is on the rise, and represents some of the most valuable work performed in our country. The GPI estimates the value of volunteer work in America to be over $130 billion. On a per capita basis, the value of work performed by churches and synagogues, civic associations, neighborhood groups, and non-profits rose from $202 in 1950 to $447 today, implying that over the past few decades, Americans have become more generous with their time and that this time is of much greater worth. ABOUT REDEFINING PROGRESS The nation's leading policy institute dedicated to smart economics, Redefining Progress develops solutions that help people, protect the environment, and grow the economy. At Redefining Progress, we believe we do not have to choose between a strong economy, a healthy environment and social justice. We make a difference through unbiased research, innovative tools, and smart solutions, and we work with a broad array of partners to shift the economy toward sustainable growth. ###

We’ll Lock Up Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Huddled Masses Yearning to Breathe Free

by Amy Goodman

“I want to be free. I want to go outside, and I want to go to school,” pleaded a 9-year-old boy, on the phone from prison. This prison wasn’t in some far-off country, some dictatorship where one would expect children to be locked up. He is imprisoned in the United States. The boy, Kevin, is imprisoned in Taylor, Texas, at the T. Don Hutto Residential Facility. His parents are also locked up there. The tale of how this family became imprisoned is just one example of how broken our immigration policies are in this country. It is a tale of children left behind, of family values locked up, of your tax dollars at work. The parents are Iranian and spent 10 years in Canada seeking asylum. Kevin, their son, was born in Canada during that time. Their request for asylum was eventually denied, and they were deported back to Iran. Majid, the father, said he and his wife were jailed and tortured there. They soon fled to Turkey and bought Greek passports. They hoped to reapply for asylum in Canada, armed with proof of the torture they suffered in Iran. On a plane back to Canada, a fellow passenger suffered a heart attack, requiring an unscheduled landing in Puerto Rico. Although they never had any intention of entering the U.S., because the plane touched down here, their passports were questioned and they were detained. The family was shipped off to Hutto. They have been there for more than three weeks. Immigration detention places the family in a legal limbo that could leave them imprisoned indefinitely, perhaps only to be deported back to more torture in Iran. This shameful practice of locking up children is bad enough. What’s worse is that it is being done for profit, by the Corrections Corporation of America. CCA is the largest publicly traded private prison operator in the U.S. CCA has close to 70 facilities scattered across the country, recent earnings of $1.33 billion and a gain in its stock-share price of 85 percent in the past year. Industry analysts gush at the profit potential promised by private prisons. Their commodity: human beings. A recent report issued jointly by two nonprofit agencies—the Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children and the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service— titled “Locking Up Family Values: The Detention of Immigrant Families,” paints a grim picture of the conditions these families endure. While in 2005 Congress directed the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement to detain families in “non-penal, homelike environments,” the report details how prisonlike the Hutto facility is. While ICE announced Hutto as a new facility, it was formerly a prison. Children as young as 6 are separated from their parents, kept in prison cells with heavy steel doors equipped with a sensitive laser alarm system. The children wear prison uniforms. They get one hour of school per day, and one hour of recreation. All non-lawyer visits are “non-contact,” through a plexiglass window speaking over a phone, to obviate the “necessity” of a full-body cavity search after each visit. Yet the chairman of the CCA board of directors, William Andrews, begs to differ: “The reports come from special-interest groups that are attempting to do away with privatization and the whole immigration situation. ... The family facility, particularly, at T. Don Hutto is almost like a home.” Recent reports put the total number of children at Hutto between 170 and 200. Close to a year after massive pro-immigrant marches occurred in every major U.S. city, immigration policy remains broken, with sensational crackdowns on undocumented workers, a planned multibillion-dollar wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and more than 26,000 immigrants in prison. CCA stock is up, but the spirits of 9-year-old Kevin are down, as he languishes in his federally funded private prison cell. He wants to go home to Canada, where he was born. U.S. immigration officials now hold his fate and that of his parents: deportation to possible torture in Iran, or political asylum and a possible return to Canada. With a Congress obsessed with nonbinding resolutions and the Bush administration that brought you Abu Ghraib and the Maher Arar deportation scandal, the prospects for Kevin and his parents are grim at best. Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on 500 stations in North America. Amy Goodman hosts the radio news program "Democracy Now!" Distributed by King Features Syndicate. © 2007 Amy Goodman ### Discuss This Article click here...